 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
Piling on South Dakota legislatorsWe?ve just dealt with those South Dakota legislators [Not sacred, but with reverence] so it seems a shame to pile on more. But with S.D. lawmakers seek campus reports; college educators bristle. [Hat tip: Instapundit.com.] The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 6-3 to pass an amended version of HB 1222, which asks the Board of Regents to report annually on what steps the state's six universities are taking to promote "intellectual diversity." It is defined as "a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives." They miss the point much as journalism schools have missed the point for the last 50 years. In the old world, "objective" meant journalism students that reported "A said 'X' and B said 'Y'" got a passing grade. What got overlooked along the way was the possibility that what A or B said might not stand up to scrutiny. In other words, the diversity of opinion was not as important as the intellectual honesty to examine the soundness of the ideas presented. The environment had to open all ideas to the possibility they might just be wrong. Nothing could be sacred. If the South Dakota State Senate guarantees intellectual diversity, it is likely guaranteeing the survival of some bad ideas. Without the freedom to laugh the South Dakota Senate proposal down for the stupid idea that it turns out to be, intellectual freedom will be lost. The freedom to show something to be ridiculous is the cornerstone of society. If the South Dakota State Senate wants intellectual diversity, it needs to do the opposite of what HB 1212 proposes. It should guarantee the right to offend. [Macro error: Can't find a sub-table named "commentIt".]
|
|
||
|
